Idea for Civ: Logistics

[MilesBeyond]

So, from what I've seen, a lot of people aren't huge fans of the Stack of Doom combat system Civ IV and earlier have got going on. And I can understand that. It's not my favourite combat system either. For one thing, it's a little boring and not terrible dynamic.

But if there's one thing we learned, it's at least better than 1UPT as seen in Civ V. The entire gameplay and structure of Civ games isn't even meant to handle 1UPT. It was a decent idea, but in execution, it just doesn't match up with how the games work.

So here's my proposal. Galactic Civilizations 2, by Stardock, has got something in it called Logistics. Every empire had a Logistics rating, which represents their ability to coordinate multiple ships, and that would determine how many ships could be grouped together. I think in Civ, that would be really cool. You'd start off with a base Logistics, which would determine how many units you could have in a stack. This number could be increased by researching technologies, traits (maybe AGG could provide a Logistics bonus), wonders (Statue of Zeus comes to mind; maybe Chicken Pizza could provide a substantial Logistics boost to stacks inside cities), and civics (Serfdom? It wouldn't really fit with Serfdom, but that civic needs a boost).

This would prevent the Stacks of Doom thing from happening, while still avoiding the 1UPT fiasco. It would also weaken Suicide Siege, which needs to happen.

The problem, in my mind, is balance. First, the balance between attackers and defenders. Would capped stacks give more of an edge to attackers, or defenders? My inclination is to say attackers, because you could bring more than one stack to attack a city, but you could only have one stack defending a city. To combat this, you could have certain buildings give cities a Logistics boost (Barracks, Walls, Castle, etc) as well as giving cities a Logistics boost to begin with.

The second problem is the balance between old tech and new. If you can only have x numbers of UPT, then that gives a bigger edge to people with more advanced technology (bigger than what already exists, I mean). And there ought to be more to war than research. GalCiv 2 solved this by having bigger, more advanced ships take up more space, but that may not work out either (i.e a unit could take up 1 Logistics point + its era number) as it might make upgrading units actually disadvantageous.

Then again, maybe it'd be fine without tinkering. Who knows.

Anyway, I thought that this idea had the potential to liven up the military game a bit, especially as it now forces you to say, "Okay, I can only have (say, 6) 6 units in this stack. Do I want it to be... Pure Axemen? Hmmm, maybe I should bring a Spearman just in case. Should my Horse Archers go with them, or would that only slow them down?" It would also allow the game to represent (in a pretty abstract way) the evolution of military tactics over time, as well as through brilliant individuals (I'm thinking that a GG-special promotion should be increasing the stack's Logistics rating).

What do people think? Would this appeal to you? Is this even something that could be feasibly modded into Civ IV? If so, has it already been done? If not, would someone be interested in doing it?

 

[traius]

So, from what I've seen, a lot of people aren't huge fans of the Stack of Doom combat system Civ IV and earlier have got going on. And I can understand that. It's not my favourite combat system either. For one thing, it's a little boring and not terrible dynamic.

But if there's one thing we learned, it's at least better than 1UPT as seen in Civ V. The entire gameplay and structure of Civ games isn't even meant to handle 1UPT. It was a decent idea, but in execution, it just doesn't match up with how the games work.

So here's my proposal. Galactic Civilizations 2, by Stardock, has got something in it called Logistics. Every empire had a Logistics rating, which represents their ability to coordinate multiple ships, and that would determine how many ships could be grouped together. I think in Civ, that would be really cool. You'd start off with a base Logistics, which would determine how many units you could have in a stack. This number could be increased by researching technologies, traits (maybe AGG could provide a Logistics bonus), wonders (Statue of Zeus comes to mind; maybe Chicken Pizza could provide a substantial Logistics boost to stacks inside cities), and civics (Serfdom? It wouldn't really fit with Serfdom, but that civic needs a boost).

This would prevent the Stacks of Doom thing from happening, while still avoiding the 1UPT fiasco. It would also weaken Suicide Siege, which needs to happen.

The problem, in my mind, is balance. First, the balance between attackers and defenders. Would capped stacks give more of an edge to attackers, or defenders? My inclination is to say attackers, because you could bring more than one stack to attack a city, but you could only have one stack defending a city. To combat this, you could have certain buildings give cities a Logistics boost (Barracks, Walls, Castle, etc) as well as giving cities a Logistics boost to begin with.

The second problem is the balance between old tech and new. If you can only have x numbers of UPT, then that gives a bigger edge to people with more advanced technology (bigger than what already exists, I mean). And there ought to be more to war than research. GalCiv 2 solved this by having bigger, more advanced ships take up more space, but that may not work out either (i.e a unit could take up 1 Logistics point + its era number) as it might make upgrading units actually disadvantageous.

Then again, maybe it'd be fine without tinkering. Who knows.

Anyway, I thought that this idea had the potential to liven up the military game a bit, especially as it now forces you to say, "Okay, I can only have (say, 6) 6 units in this stack. Do I want it to be... Pure Axemen? Hmmm, maybe I should bring a Spearman just in case. Should my Horse Archers go with them, or would that only slow them down?" It would also allow the game to represent (in a pretty abstract way) the evolution of military tactics over time, as well as through brilliant individuals (I'm thinking that a GG-special promotion should be increasing the stack's Logistics rating).

What do people think? Would this appeal to you? Is this even something that could be feasibly modded into Civ IV? If so, has it already been done? If not, would someone be interested in doing it?

Whatever favouring occurs for the attacker in being able to surround a city with multiple stacks is lost by the fact that the attacker now has to make one unstoppable force into many lesser forces which should be more easily taken down by the defender, as with roads you should always be able to hit and run. If you are really worried about it, you could add 1 logistics while in your own territory. I actually really like this logistics idea. I think Organized should probably also have a free bonus to logistics, though organized is already a good trait, as should protective (or at least protective should get an extra one in your own territory)

One of the big things you will have to do is probably modify collateral damage. Catapults and the like would definitely be weakened by stacks being reduced in size this way. Also, you may have to reduce the number of aircraft per city, as the usefulness of aircraft increases in such a set-up (or make aircraft simply take from the same logistics pile, in which case the usefulness of aircraft is probably way down now, though aircraft carrier jets are really the same as ever.)

 

[Qgqqqqq]

Ease of collateral is a great way to nerf stacks - disposable in paticular.
However it DOES increase micro significantly.

 

[jarhead_leif]

The question here is can the AI adopt with this strategy? I believe it can lead to a game break down.

You need THE guy that can access and alter the game engine. Tough.[phew]

 

[King Flevance]

I have thought this myself for quite a while too actually. In addition, I will add that spies should be immune to the logistics cap or have a stealth logistic cap that is higher. Subs should also use a separate logistic stack so that moving onto Someone's stack of subs doesn't give them away effectively allowing you to track sub stacks you shouldn't be able to see.

Another benefit concerning attacker vs. defender is this would bring back ZoC if you have the tile capacity maxed with your units. This aids a defender by a significant amount. I don't think nerfing Seige damage is smart in this system, but I could see maybe wanting to increase cost of Seige. The problem is Seige actually is weakened in this system already, especially if you have them cost more than 1logistic value on a tile. Seige are weak outside of an offensive Seige attack already. Limiting their defending units means the best tactic would be to invade with an army of troops and bring your Seige to the front lines slowly. Basically, using supply lines with a strong offense clearing the way and maybe anti-flank units (spears, pike, SAM) in the ranks to guard them. Ultimately, nerfing Seige damage depends on what the logistics cap is. I think it should be around 5 early on but be around 15 by end game.

I talked about this a few years ago with some modders and as a heads up, this is heavy duty stuff. Way out of my paygrade will ever be so I personally put the issue to bed in my mind. But it would be really awesome if it popped up one day.

 

[traius]

I was thinking about this some more, and I think that you should try and make logistics pinned to the tile itself, an attribute of tiles, and not some global thing for the empire. This way you could give reduced logistics for woody and/or hill tiles, and improved logstics for coastal and/or ocean tiles. In general everyone should probably also get +1 logistics with roads, and +2 logistics on railroads (numbers are just for concept, not actual balancing), but only if the roads and railroads are available (which would in effect aid the defender, as his roads would be usable to him, but the attacker wouldn't get the bonuses).
But I know next to nothing about modding civ or what I the feasibility of what I have written above. I played around with custom factions in SMAC/X for a while

 

[noto2]

Maybe I'm just weird but I have no problem with the stack of doom at all. You can make a tactics game, or you can make a strategy game. If you try to make both you at least have to divide the game up into two parts - like Moo3. You have a turn based strategy game and then when battles start it turns into a RTS, I think Rome total war was like that too. But to be honest, I'd rather just have one or the other. Chess is a tactics game, Risk is a strategy game. You roll the dice to see who wins the battles in Risk. Can you imagine if every Risk battle was determined by a little mini game somewhat like chess? What an awful game that would be. When I want tactics I'll play warcraft or starcraft. When I want strategy I'll play Civ. I really don't want to be bothered with micro managing battle tactics in Civ, I just don't think it fits the game at all. Having an abstraction, such as a stack of doom, works just fine, imo

 

[calibur]

Honestly, I don't usually have a stack of doom anyways, I have several stacks of 5-20 units doing different things, controlled differently, and released differently.

 

[Drakarska]

Honestly, I don't usually have a stack of doom anyways, I have several stacks of 5-20 units doing different things, controlled differently, and released differently.

Similar to myself as well. I prefer using small "stacks" of roughly 10 to 15 units in a combined arms set up. I like the logistics idea though, because I always thought if your maintaining an army you should have supply lines for that army.

 

[jarhead_leif]

I like if barracks give additional garrison slot just like in airports.
War ships are 1upt and can be stack with 2upt transports.

 

[lindsay40k]

I think there's a mod - Realism Invictus? - in which there isn't a stack limit per se but rather an 'overcrowding' combat penalty of sorts.

 

[BSPollux]

So, from what I've seen, a lot of people aren't huge fans of the Stack of Doom combat system Civ IV and earlier have got going on. And I can understand that. It's not my favourite combat system either. For one thing, it's a little boring and not terrible dynamic.

But if there's one thing we learned, it's at least better than 1UPT as seen in Civ V. The entire gameplay and structure of Civ games isn't even meant to handle 1UPT. It was a decent idea, but in execution, it just doesn't match up with how the games work.

MilesBeyond I disagree with the way you wrote your opening post. It seems highly manipulative with all that 'we all agree that' and 'its common thought' stuff.

No we dont all agree and no you dont know what everyone things. And as long as you are not the avatar of the whole Firaxis team then you are not the one to judge about the question if the game is like it was ment to be. They know, you dont.

Of cause you should have your own opinion and you should voice it, but dont impersonate the all knowing head of community here. Speak for yourself, avoid speaking for me, I didnt authorize you to do so.

Thanks.

 

[Nicol.Bolas]

the only problem with SoD as it is now, is the inability of AI to deal with it.
just make AI use siege more.

another suggestion: civ2 solution:
lose the whole stack upon defeat, or maybe lose another 3-10 defending units if you lose a fight, depending on the size of the stack.

 

[Ghpstage]

the only problem with SoD as it is now, is the inability of AI to deal with it.
just make AI use siege more.

I'm not convinced that simply building more seige will make much difference at all though it would make AI stacks more threatening if they get a chace to attack something. Its not going to solve some of the more serious problems.
It may even lead to unforseen problems such as building too much seige or throwing ridiculous numbers of catapults at tiny obstacles it could crush without them

another suggestion: civ2 solution:
lose the whole stack upon defeat, or maybe lose another 3-10 defending units if you lose a fight, depending on the size of the stack.

And you think the AI is bad now? This would cause it to totally collapse!
It also doesn't alleviate SOD at all, it just makes the attackers initiative pretty much absolute, with the way roads and culture work right now it would make all warfare all but impossible.....

 

[greygamer]

The Europa Universalis series used logistics, you could research better logistics to improve the size of force that could be supported (different regions could support different sized forces). If the support cap was exceeded then armies would take damage each turn.

Historically logistics was always a major factor in any campaign.

 

[ksa76]

I like the idea of a empire-wide logistics rating determining maximum stacks.

Additionally (or alternatively) the following penalties could somewhat discourage large stacks
* increased unit maintenance for stacked units
(each stacked unit in enemy territory counts as an extra unit in the unit maintenance calculation)
* 20% risk of dysentery for stacked units on enemy's desert tiles
(20% health penalty for all stacked units on stack)
* 20% risk of malaria for stacked units on enemy's jungle tiles
(20% health penalty)
* 20% risk of frost bite for stacked units on enemy's tundra and ice tiles
(20% health penalty)

 

[ZeekLTK]

I think stack of doom is fine and does not need to be tinkered with.

It already had self imposed restrictions:

-You can only move as fast as the slowest unit. This requires you to decide what kind of stacks to build. Do you put horse archers with spearmen for protection at the cost of making them slower, or do you have the horse archers alone to maximize their movement but also leave them vulnerable? Etc.

-You still have to divide your units. If you send the vast majority of your army in a SoD then that is likely leaving you weak elsewhere since you have so many troops committed to the stack. Basically, deciding whether or not to even build a SoD in the first place is a strategic decision.

-You have to decide when/if to disband the SoD. If you are attacking, you have to decide whether to keep the stack together for maximum protection, or if/when to split it up to accomplish different goals. If you reach an area where there are 2-3 enemy cities nearby, do you keep the SoD to attack one city and let the others continue to build defenses? Or do you split the stack and send some to each city? Another strategic decision.

Etc.



*Edit: I guess the ONE thing I would like to see change is go back to how it was in Civ 3 where you could BOMBARD stacks. In Civ 4, it's kinda lame that you have to lose a catapult/cannon/artillery in order to weaken the stack. I liked in Civ 3 being able to bombard the stack without losing the unit bombarding. It gives an incentive to not use stacks so that the opponent cannot bombard all of your units at once.

 

[Nicol.Bolas]

Galactic civilization logistic and "fleets" (stacks) have one very important mechanic that is not present in civ4 (or any civ).
Honestly this mechanic is crucial in galciv2 and there is no comparison to this mechanic in civ whatsoever.
Whenever ships fight (regardless, whether it's a single ship or a fleet), each side takes SIMULTANEOUS HITS WITH ALL WEAPONS against the other side.

This way even if 1 crappy ship attacks a super-modern huge fleet, it is guaranteed to take one shot.

This means there is a point, where fleet pays of compared to attacking with one ship one after another, but its not easy to attain (single ships in this example would always fire only once, then get obliterated, while if they were in the fleet, some would have chance to survive 1st turn and fire again)

Another huge implication is that defense is almost useless in galciv 2. This even becomes apparent in the vanilla campaign where you often fight extremely advanced ships.
the only way to destroy these is throw endless single ships with only weapons (attack stat).

Fleets or defense are useless at that point.


I am mentioning all this, because you did not explain how you would apply this core mechanic into civ 4

The closest example I can imagine in civ 4 is conquering a heavily fortified city with siege. - how would the dynamics be different when attacking one catapult after another, or all at once in a "fleet"
IIRC civ3 had something like fleets actually - but I have no idea how the dynamic worked

 

[MilesBeyond]

Galactic civilization logistic and "fleets" (stacks) have one very important mechanic that is not present in civ4 (or any civ).
Honestly this mechanic is crucial in galciv2 and there is no comparison to this mechanic in civ whatsoever.
Whenever ships fight (regardless, whether it's a single ship or a fleet), each side takes SIMULTANEOUS HITS WITH ALL WEAPONS against the other side.

This way even if 1 crappy ship attacks a super-modern huge fleet, it is guaranteed to take one shot.

This means there is a point, where fleet pays of compared to attacking with one ship one after another, but its not easy to attain (single ships in this example would always fire only once, then get obliterated, while if they were in the fleet, some would have chance to survive 1st turn and fire again)

Another huge implication is that defense is almost useless in galciv 2. This even becomes apparent in the vanilla campaign where you often fight extremely advanced ships.
the only way to destroy these is throw endless single ships with only weapons (attack stat).

Fleets or defense are useless at that point.


I am mentioning all this, because you did not explain how you would apply this core mechanic into civ 4

The closest example I can imagine in civ 4 is conquering a heavily fortified city with siege. - how would the dynamics be different when attacking one catapult after another, or all at once in a "fleet"
IIRC civ3 had something like fleets actually - but I have no idea how the dynamic worked

Civ 3 had the army system, which allowed you to group 3 or 4 units together into one "super unit."

Your points are all very valid, but I'm not talking about forming "fleets" (or, I suppose, armies). I'm talking about just having a limit in a stack. The combat would still work as it does in Civ IV - they wouldn't be all grouped together, in other words, they'd be functioning as individual units, however there would be a limit to how many of them there could be in one tile.

I apologize as it was actually a lack of clarity on my part. I didn't mean import in the GalCiv fleet system wholesale, I was just using it as an example to springboard onto a different but related idea.